Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.

View Poll Results: Should Judging Be Fixed?

Voters
16. Log in to vote on this poll
  • Yes

    13 81.25%
  • No

    3 18.75%
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 72
  1. #61

    Default

    Government employees. This means it'll never change

  2. #62

    Default

    How come there's no "maybe" option?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    65,031

    Default

    There are alot more tie/even rounds than there are blowouts. In both aldo/frankie and Rashad/nog you could have scored at least 1 tie round but for very different reasons: even action in the former and no actionin the latter.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    Sinners repent!

  4. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OnyxShadow View Post
    Well, its not too complicated in concept. 10-10 is a tie. 10-1 is where one fighter does nothing and barely makes it out of the round alive. I imagine that it would take some time for judges to make the transition, but it would be fine after a few months or so.
    I do not think you need to have a 10 degree scale of having your ass kicked for scoring a fight. That can lead to way too much confusion and inconsistency. You want a system where two judges watching the same fight have a decent chance of scoring all 3 rounds the same way.

    You basically want to mimic, in broad strokes, the same kind of results you might use to describe the outcome of a stick and ball sport.

    Using soccer / hockey as a baseline example:


    0-0 score / 3-3: Tied game. Should be very rare but is reasonably awarded when you have two counter strikers land comparably effective strikes, or one fighter gets rocked at the start of a round but rocks the opponent at the end of the round.

    2-1: Game was competitive from start to finish, but one side squeaked out a victory.
    3-1: One side had a clear advantage throughout, but the losing side had its moments.
    4-0: Clear domination, one side was clearly overmatched.
    8 - 2: Complete blowout.


    Anything that looks like a blowout in MMA should be stopped by a referee. Given a preference for a decisive result, I am also ok with a tied round being functionally impossible absent a point deduction. So for scoring a fight, I think you only need a 3 point spread between the losing fighter and the winning fighter.

    3 points awarded to winning fighter:
    2 points awarded if losing fighter was competitive throughout.
    1 point awarded if losing fighter was clearly outmatched
    0 points awarded if losing fighter was easily dominated or entirely ineffective.

    I would say a 3-0 round would be awarded to rounds like rounds 1 and 2 of Jon Fitch vs Demian Maia (one fighter was defensive throughout and at no time posed a risk to the dominant fighter). I would give 3-1 rounds to something like the first rounds of Jose Aldo vs Frankie Edgar (one fighter was dominant, but the other fighter was able to fight back). A 3-2 round would be the way most rounds play out.

    END COMMUNICATION

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    a parallel universe
    Posts
    2,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LordZardoz View Post
    I do not think you need to have a 10 degree scale of having your ass kicked for scoring a fight. That can lead to way too much confusion and inconsistency. You want a system where two judges watching the same fight have a decent chance of scoring all 3 rounds the same way.

    You basically want to mimic, in broad strokes, the same kind of results you might use to describe the outcome of a stick and ball sport.

    Using soccer / hockey as a baseline example:


    0-0 score / 3-3: Tied game. Should be very rare but is reasonably awarded when you have two counter strikers land comparably effective strikes, or one fighter gets rocked at the start of a round but rocks the opponent at the end of the round.

    2-1: Game was competitive from start to finish, but one side squeaked out a victory.
    3-1: One side had a clear advantage throughout, but the losing side had its moments.
    4-0: Clear domination, one side was clearly overmatched.
    8 - 2: Complete blowout.


    Anything that looks like a blowout in MMA should be stopped by a referee. Given a preference for a decisive result, I am also ok with a tied round being functionally impossible absent a point deduction. So for scoring a fight, I think you only need a 3 point spread between the losing fighter and the winning fighter.

    3 points awarded to winning fighter:
    2 points awarded if losing fighter was competitive throughout.
    1 point awarded if losing fighter was clearly outmatched
    0 points awarded if losing fighter was easily dominated or entirely ineffective.

    I would say a 3-0 round would be awarded to rounds like rounds 1 and 2 of Jon Fitch vs Demian Maia (one fighter was defensive throughout and at no time posed a risk to the dominant fighter). I would give 3-1 rounds to something like the first rounds of Jose Aldo vs Frankie Edgar (one fighter was dominant, but the other fighter was able to fight back). A 3-2 round would be the way most rounds play out.

    END COMMUNICATION
    Hockey players don't hit balls with sticks.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greezy View Post
    Hockey players don't hit balls with sticks.
    When I talk about a 'stick and ball' sport, I mean any sport where you use a ball, or you use a stick.

    Also...



    END COMMUNICATION

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    1,460

    Default

    The system Zardoz is proposing reminds me of a fan post I saw on MMA Fighting a while back:

    It's become an accepted truth that the problem with MMA judging is the judges and not the system. If we could only get judges who knew how to score an MMA match, all our problems would be solved. I think this is a fantasy. The judges that we MMA fans dislike are decried as boxing judges who only know that sport. But ask boxing fans how they feel about the exact same judges and see what they say. No one is satisfied with the judging in their fights, no matter if the judges have tons of experience or none. What if the problem wasn't only the judges (though I think that it does contribute), but the ten point must system itself?

    The problem with the ten point must system is that it asks judges to make decisions about discrete rounds, but then only compares the three judges' scores at the fight level. What I mean is that each of the three judges decides who they think won a round, but the system does not care whether there was unanimous agreement about who won that round. Instead, we wait until the fight is over and each judge totals his rounds to assign a winner. Each of those judges counts as a single vote and the majority wins producing either a split or unanimous decision.

    But what if we did care about how the judges saw individual rounds? Why shouldn't we treat each judged round as a discrete entity that should earn points for the fighters? It makes the greatest use of the judging resources available to us and might help minimize the effects of some bad judging.

    Here is the proposal:
    1. Forget the ten point thing. It's overly confusing and doesn't make any sense anyway. Go to a simple model where a judge awards one point to the fighter he thinks wins a round. If it's a dominant round (what we'd call 10-8), he gives two points. If neither fighter wins (what we'd call 10-10) he gives neither fighter any points. In the case of a point deduction, a fighter can get a negative score in a round.
    2. Add up all the points from all the judges at the end of the fight and the fighter with the higher score wins.
    3. Drink beer

    Benefits
    The terminology becomes clearer. We've all had to sit there trying to explain to a novice why 30-27, 30-27, 30-27 is a perfect score. How bad could a fighter have done if he got 27 points? Imagine instead that the winning fighter wins by a score of 9-0. That's a shutout and a lot easier to understand.

    Fewer possible screw ups with basic math. We've seen a few instances where commissions can't do math and announce the wrong winner. We'd be making it easier on them by adding up 1's and 2's rather than 10's and 9's.
    The real benefits are in the way decisions are granted. Let's take this past weekend's Henderson vs. Edgar 2 fight as an example. The scores were 49-46 Edgar, and 48-47, 48-47 for Henderson. Translated into points, that means 4-1 Edgar, 3-2 Henderson, 3-2 Henderson. Total those up and you get 8 points for Edgar and 7 points for Henderson. The reason why is because all three judges were unanimous in giving Edgar rounds 2 and 5 and were unanimous in giving Henderson round 1. But the other two rounds were split. And since Edgar got two unanimous rounds and Henderson got only one unanimous round and two split rounds, we give the decision to Edgar.

    Let's look at another decision, the split decision Leonard Garcia earned over Nam Phan at the TUF 12 Finale. This was widely considered to be one of the worst decisions of all time. The scores in that one were 30-27 Phan, and 29-28, 29-28 for Garcia. In points, that means 3-0 Phan, 2-1 and 2-1 for Garcia, or in total, 5-4 in favor of Phan. He earned the only unanimous round of the fight, plus one split round. Garcia had no unanimous rounds and two split rounds and loses this decision.

  8. #68

    Default

    duncan and zardoz, i think you guys have the right mindset, but are over-complicating the solution.

    the 10 point must system is not perfect for mma but it is very serviceable if followed as written.

    what i feel is the biggest problem in mma judging is the bastardization of the "10 point must system", turning into the "10-9 must system"


    most scoring controversies would be eliminated if the judges used the written 10 point must system as close rounds would be properly scored 10-10 and there would be a much higher percentage of round scored 10-8.


    Quote Originally Posted by ABC UNIFIED RULES OF MIXED MARTIAL ARTS
    1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows dominance in a round;

    2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;

    3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

    4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.
    Last edited by fightfan10; 02-08-2013 at 01:22 PM.

  9. #69

    Default

    right now when there is a close round that neither contestant shows dominance it is scored 10-9.
    the correct scoring should be 10-10

    right now when there is not a close round and a contestant overwhelmingly dominates, but does not totally dominate and nearly kill their opponent it is still scored 10-9
    the correct scoring should be 10-8

    when there is total domination and a near fatality in the ring it is incorrectly now scored as a 10-8
    the correct scoring should be 10-7 round.

  10. #70

    Default

    duncan and zardoz, i think you guys have the right mindset, but are over-complicating the solution.

    the 10 point must system is not perfect for mma but it is very serviceable if followed as written.

    what i feel is the biggest problem in mma judging is the bastardization of the "10 point must system", turning into the "10-9 must system"


    most scoring controversies would be eliminated if the judges used the written 10 point must system as close rounds would be properly scored 10-10 and there would be a much higher percentage of round scored 10-8.

    Quote Originally Posted by ABC UNIFIED RULES OF MIXED MARTIAL ARTS
    1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows dominance in a round;

    2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;

    3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

    4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •